§703-301 Justification a defense; civil
remedies unaffected. (1) In any prosecution for an offense,
justification, as defined in sections 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense.
(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under
this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is
available in any civil action. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]
COMMENTARY ON §703-301
This section does not attempt to define the defense of
justification. An extended definition is given in the sections which follow.
Subsection (1) merely establishes that justification is a defense. This places
the burden of producing some credible evidence of the existence of
justification on the defendant. If the defendant produces such evidence, or if
it appears as part of the prosecution's case, the defendant is entitled to have
the defense considered by the jury. The prosecution, however, must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, facts which negative the defense.
Subsection (2) preserves civil remedies for conduct which may
give rise to a defense of justification. Civil standards of conduct are higher
than we propose for criminal liability. For example, unreasonable conduct on
the part of the defendant might suffice for civil liability whereas criminal
liability will turn on the defendant's own subjective mental state. It
therefore seems desirable explicitly to preserve civil remedies.
Prior Hawaii statutory and case law recognized some of the
defenses which the Code unites in this chapter under the defense of
justification. Reference to such recognition will be made in the commentary
under the sections which follow. There is some language in old Hawaii case law
which indicates that the defense of justification is affirmative in nature;[1]
to the extent that this language would be followed today, the Code represents a
change.
Case Notes
Justification is not an affirmative defense and prosecution
has burden of disproving it once evidence of justification has been adduced.
60 H. 259, 588 P.2d 438 (1978).
Defendant's claim of justification, in defense against
prosecution for terroristic threatening, was established regardless of whether
or not defendant used deadly force. 1 H. App. 167, 616 P.2d 229 (1980).
"Choice of evils" defense applies to violations. 9
H. App. 115, 826 P.2d 884 (1992).
__________
§703-301 Commentary:
1. King v. Bridges, 5 Haw. 467, 472 (1885); Provisional
Government v. Caecires, 9 Haw. 522, 533 (1894).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
State v. Culkin, 35 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2001).
State v. Culkin, 35 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 12× “HRS § 703-301 instructs that justification, as defined in §§ 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense in any prosecution for an offense.”
State v. Augustin, 63 P.3d 1097 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 4× “The commentary on HRS § 703-301 (1993) explains in part that a defendant claiming justification bears "the burden of producing some credible evidence of the existence of justification" and that, "[i]f the defendant produces such evidence, or if it appears as part of the…”
State v. McNulty, 588 P.2d 438 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 703-301 (1976) 3 provides that justification, including the use of force in self-defense, is a complete defense in *262 any prosecution for an offense.”
State v. Nupeiset, 977 P.2d 183 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 6× “” The term justification defense itself is not defined but an "extended definition is given in [each one of] the sections which follow” HRS § 703-301. Commentary on HRS § 703-301.”
State v. Bell, 589 P.2d 517 (Haw. 1978).
· cites it 4× “Commentary on HRS § 703-301. If the defendant produces such evidence, or if such evidence appears as part of the prosecution's case, the defendant is entitled to have the defense considered by the trial jury.”
State v. Feliciano, 115 P.3d 648 (Haw. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Self-defense Feliciano also argues that the circuit court's conclusion of law that "the shooting of Stoesser was not justifiable under HRS § 703-304 has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution" is irrelevant because Feliciano did not raise self-defense.”
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 270 P.3d 1024 (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 8× “See HRS § 703-301 cmt. ("For example, unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant might suffice for civil liability whereas criminal liability will turn on the defendant’s own subjective mental state.”
State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Nupeiset pointed out that “HRS § 703-301(1) (1993) provides, 'In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense.”
State v. Lui, 603 P.2d 151 (Haw. 1979).
· cites it 3× “2 HRS § 703-301 reads in part: § 703-301 Justification a defense; civil remedies unaffected.”
State v. Maumalanga, 976 P.2d 410 (Haw. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “" Commentary on HRS § 703-301, at 52. But the three considerations which practicably must be disproved by a defendant to prove his or her "reasonable belief" are those very facts which would negative the choice of evils defense.”
State v. Tagaro, 757 P.2d 1175 (Haw. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 703-301(1) (1985). 6 The jury’s determination is based on its view of whether or not the defendant’s belief in his justification was reasonable.”
State v. Realina, 616 P.2d 229 (Haw. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “See HRS § 701-115(2)(a) and Commentary to HRS § 703-301, supra. On review, the question is whether there is substantial evidence negativing the defense.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-301(1) — 8 cases
State v. Culkin, 35 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2001).
“HRS § 703-301 instructs that justification, as defined in §§ 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense in any prosecution for an offense.”
State v. Feliciano, 115 P.3d 648 (Haw. 2005).
“Self-defense Feliciano also argues that the circuit court's conclusion of law that "the shooting of Stoesser was not justifiable under HRS § 703-304 has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution" is irrelevant because Feliciano did not raise self-defense.”
State v. Mark, 231 P.3d 478 (Haw. 2010).
“Nupeiset pointed out that “HRS § 703-301(1) (1993) provides, 'In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense.”
State v. Tagaro, 757 P.2d 1175 (Haw. App. 1987).
“HRS § 703-301(1) (1985). 6 The jury’s determination is based on its view of whether or not the defendant’s belief in his justification was reasonable.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-301(2) — 1 case
Hamilton Ex Rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 270 P.3d 1024 (Haw. 2012).
“See HRS § 703-301 cmt. ("For example, unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant might suffice for civil liability whereas criminal liability will turn on the defendant’s own subjective mental state.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.